Danny, can you please search for a Jira issue at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CASTOR to see whether somebody else reported a similar (if not the same) problem.
Thanks Werner On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:00:15 -0400, Danny Collins wrote: >I was looking around the castor site and I couldn't find anything to >tell me why the validation changed after 0.9.6. Any body have a clue? > >On 10/14/05, Danny Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OK - here is something a little bizarre. >> >> 0.9.6 generates code in the descriptor class that has maxlength validation >> >> 0.9.7 and 0.9.9 do not. I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I am now >> missing something in my build file or my castor properties to get the >> same behavior out of the later releases. >> >> >> Any ideas? >> >> On 10/14/05, Danny Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > that's what I thought! and I am using the SourceGenerator. >> > >> > OK - I think this may be part of my problem - here is a snippet of the >> > schema >> > >> > <xsd:complexType name="C-14"> >> > <xsd:simpleContent> >> > <xsd:extension base="C-14_NoID"> >> > <xsd:attribute name="id" type="ID"/> >> > </xsd:extension> >> > </xsd:simpleContent> >> > </xsd:complexType> >> > <xsd:simpleType name="C-14_NoID"> >> > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string"> >> > <xsd:maxLength value="14"/> >> > <xsd:minLength value="1"/> >> > </xsd:restriction> >> > </xsd:simpleType> >> > >> > >> > I am trying to get the C-14 type to validate, except the restriction >> > is on the C-14_NoID node, and when I look at the Descriptor class the >> > getExtends is always null. Which is why I think that I'm not getting >> > the validation I think I should be getting. >> > >> > No objects are generated that have anything to do with C-14_NoID. >> > >> > Do I need to let the sourcegenerator know anything special to get it >> > to generate the extended nodes? >> > >> > >> > Thanks again for the help! >> > Danny >> > >> > On 10/13/05, Keith Visco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Danny, >> > > >> > > Castor will, by default, validate the object model prior to the >> > > marshalling process. If you're using the source generator then the >> > > generated descriptors contain some validation attributes that Castor >> > > will use during this validation process. If you're not using the source >> > > generator you'd have to create your own validators or validation step. >> > > >> > > Castor's object model validation is not as "complete" as validating the >> > > XML itself with the parser, but it should provide you with the basic >> > > property level validation, so in your situation the strings that are too >> > > long should be validated by Castor's object model validation process. >> > > >> > > If you open up the *Descriptor.java files you'll see the validation code >> > > to give you an idea of what Castor will validate against. >> > > >> > > --Keith >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Danny Collins wrote: >> > > > AHA! Yeah I am trying to go from Java->XML and get the same level of >> > > > validation that you would get when you go form XML->JAVA. >> > > > >> > > > We are already exploring adding in our own validation step. I was just >> > > > hoping to leverage anything that castor provided. >> > > > >> > > > thanks >> > > > Danny >> > > > >> > > > On 10/13/05, Stephen Bash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >>Danny- >> > > >> >> > > >>Are you validating during xml->java or java->xml? The properties given >> > > >>tell the xml parser to validate against a given schema, but during >> > > >>java->xml, I don't believe the parser is utilized (there might be an >> > > >>option that I don't know about). My first idea would be to generate >> > > >>the >> > > >>xml from the java objects, and then run that xml through a validating >> > > >>parser to determine if the xml conforms to the schema. >> > > >> >> > > >>I should mention that I don't use the source generator much at all, so >> > > >>there may be options in there to help with validation that I don't know >> > > >>about. >> > > >> >> > > >>Stephen >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>Danny Collins wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>>OK - popped those attributes into my properties file - regenerated the >> > > >>>source code and the fed the objects a ton of invalid data - mainly >> > > >>>strings that are WAY too long and should fail validation and will if I >> > > >>>do >> > > >>> >> > > >>>I've attached my castor properties file. >> > > >>> >> > > >>>I am trying to validate an individual object in the castor graph - >> > > >>>that is a piece of the schema. >> > > >>> >> > > >>>do I need to build out the entire object graph in order for it to >> > > >>>validate correctly? >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Thanks again, you all are being very helpful! >> > > >>>Danny >> > > >>> >> > > >>>On 10/13/05, Danny Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>>>SWEET! Thanks for pointing this out. I am going to give it a go >> > > >>>>straight away and let you know if it works out for me! >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>Thanks again guys. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>On 10/13/05, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>>Yes, as recently added to the XML F.A.Q. (though not released yet): >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>><p>To enable XML validation at the parser level, please add >> > > >>>>>properties >> > > >>>>>to your >> > > >>>>><tt>castor.properties</tt> file as follows:</p> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>><code> >> > > >>>>> org.exolab.castor.parser.namespaces=true >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>org.exolab.castor.sax.features=http://xml.org/sax/features/validation,\ >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>http://apache.org/xml/features/validation/schema,\ >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>http://apache.org/xml/features/validation/schema-full-checking >> > > >>>>></code> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>><p>Please note that the example given relies on the use of Apache >> > > >>>>>Xerces, hence the >> > > >>>>><tt>apache.org</tt> properties; similar options should exist for >> > > >>>>>other >> > > >>>>>parsers.</p> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>I hope this helps >> > > >>>>>Werner >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>wg> -----Original Message----- >> > > >>>>>wg> From: Danny Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>>>wg> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:49 PM >> > > >>>>>wg> To: [email protected] >> > > >>>>>wg> Subject: Re: [castor-user] Schema Validation >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> My original thought was that a call to validate prior to >> > > >>>>>wg> Marshal would work. But that doesn't seem to do anything. >> > > >>>>>wg> Then I found a reference to a property in the >> > > >>>>>wg> castor.properties file called >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> org.exolab.castor.marshalling.validation >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> that I have tried with true and false to no avail. >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> Any thing else that I should know about? >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> TIA >> > > >>>>>wg> Danny >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> On 10/13/05, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >>>>>wg> > Danny, >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> > No, you are not. How are you instructing the XML parser >> > > >>>>>wg> (via Castor) >> > > >>>>>wg> > to use XML Schema validation ? >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> > Werner >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> -----Original Message----- >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> From: Danny Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:35 PM >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> To: [email protected] >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Subject: [castor-user] Schema Validation >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Hello, >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> I seem to be having problems getting the my objects >> > > >>>>>validated >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> against the schema - it seems to be able to tell me if I >> > > >>>>>am >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> missing required objects, but it doesn't seem to be able >> > > >>>>>to >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> validate other restrictions like maxlength. Am I >> > > >>>>>wg> misinterpreting >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> the validation abilities? >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> TIA >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Danny >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> > > >>>>>wg> send an empty >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> message to the following address: >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> > ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>wg> > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an >> > > >>>>>empty >> > > >>>>>wg> > message to the following address: >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>>>wg> > ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> > >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>wg> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an >> > > >>>>>wg> empty message to the following address: >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>>>wg> ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>>wg> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> > > >>>>>send an empty message to the following address: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>>>------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > >>> >> > > >>>------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> > > >>>send an empty message to the following address: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>>------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> >> > > >>------------------------------------------------- >> > > >>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> > > >>send an empty message to the following address: >> > > >> >> > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >>------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------- >> > > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> > > > send an empty message to the following address: >> > > > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > ------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------- >> > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> > > send an empty message to the following address: >> > > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > ------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >> send an empty message to the following address: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >------------------------------------------------- >If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please >send an empty message to the following address: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty message to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------
